Today is ash wednesday, meaning it is the beginning of lent, and I am upset. In the last week, I've heard tons of people debating what to give up for lent. I don't want this to call anyone out, but I can't tell this story without examples. "I could give up alcohol. . .on second thought, nevermind, that's not fun." "I'm giving up Pepsi by limiting myself to one can a day." "I'm giving up meat. . .but I hear you're allowed to cheat on Sunday." "I can't give up smoking since that's an addiction, maybe I can give up something like shopping." I call bullshit on all of you. Normally, I don't like to meddle in religious affairs, but this one is so blaring I can't leave it be.
  Originally, the forty day period is symbolic of the forty days spent by both Moses and Elijah in the wilderness. Later, Jesus is said to have retreated into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights. Afterwards he was hungry and the devil tempted him. Jesus overcame all of the devilish temptation of the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life by citing holy Scripture to the devil. The Devil left him. Holy Angels ministered to Jesus, and he was able to begin his work as a minister spreading the word of god, the result of a living form of rebirth. As a result, individuals celebrate the 40 days and nights before Easter by giving up something dear to them. The intended effect of this deprivation is the sensation of success against temptation; once one can be immune to temptation, their faith may be renewed and they can re-emerge into the world. I may be an atheist, but not believing in god means nothing about not understanding doctrine.
  So here's my problem. So many people are willing to take this religious task so lightly as to skirt the responsibility of full deprivation. Comparatively, if you believe that Jesus literally walked in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights, giving up alcohol or meat shouldn't be such a strain. The truth is, faith isn't about specific doctrine today, it's about integrating doctrine in such a way to operate in a functional way with ones life. I understand this, and I also understand deprivation. In 2003, as a test of self discipline and possibly on a mission for some sort of existential lesson that was never fully realized, I gave up chocolate, soda and caffiene, cold turkey and from January 1 to January 1. All 3 of those things weren't trivial things I gave up because I had to, they were things integral to my life and completely inconvenient, both since I was physically addicted to caffeine and because they're part of our culture. Nevertheless, I succeeded for the year and have resumed my addictions. If I can do that for a year with no god over my head, why can't someone under the observation and absolute authority of god go all the way for a mere month and a half?
  More importantly, why is it that when it comes to personal sacrafice we can change doctrine and tradition as theyr'e convenient, yet when it comes to gay marriage people can stick so firmly to doctrine that they promote fear, hate and legislative intolerance?

EDIT: Once again always convict the atheist. This post is NOT anti lent. Not is it anti christian. It is anti intolerance. Ask people, I've encouraged them to give up something hard, and if they did, I'd help them however I could. I don't want to take your christianity away from you, and I support everyone's right to choose their lifestyle, christian or gay. Nevertheless, convenience is a poor excuse for choosing when to spread intolerance through doctrine.

  I'd like to address a question that has been pit in my face a lot recently: Am I crazy? Well, that depends on your definition of crazy. All of a sudden all these concerns have been voiced that me referring to myself as crazy on my website will prevent me from ever getting a good job or winning a lawsuit. Allow me to clarify; I have nothing to hide, and if this website is one day the cause of my demise then I at least want my self description to be accurate. If crazy means singing imaginary songs to myself while standing naked in Wendy's, I'm not crazy. If crazy means I hear voices in my head telling me to collect every blue pen I see, I'm not crazy. If crazy means I constantly as you if there's a blue elephant on my shoulder, I'm not crazy. If crazy means I invest lots of time and passion into non-traditional interests for no objective gain, then I'm crazy. If crazy means I have an understanding of the world dramatically different from that of the people around me, then I'm crazy. If crazy means I battle severe depression and anxiety attacks, then yes I'm crazy, though I recognized my problems and took steps to alleviate stressors and acquire coping skills, and I personally think you'd be crazy not to do that. If crazy means I take small issues and turn them into personal affronts to my abilities and then commit myself to early failure, I am distinctly crazy. If crazy means I live a hectic life that I am somewhat stuck in due to my circumstances but recognize I just need to struggle through until I'm finished, then I'm crazy. Most importantly, if crazy means ridiculous coincidences and situations seem to happen at a much higher frequency to me than to other people, then I'm crazy. I call myself crazy, but not in a ::they're coming to take me away he he:: kind of way, in a ::everyone's a little crazy, I just have a double side helping of weird:: kind of way. And if telling my problems to the world turns me into a monster to an employer or litigator, then it probably wasn't a place I would have wanted to work at anyway and even more faith in the legal system will have been lost. This last year and a half sucked, everything I held as consistent got flipped on its head, the tolls on my health, money and relationships are irreconcilable, and I developed a fairly negative attitude about the events of my life in Tallahassee. I'll get over it one day, probably quickly after I leave this place. But when I describe myself as crazy, it's because using one word to describe my hectic state is much easier than telling the whole story every time.
  I was thinking about death and how sad we get when an old person dies, or when a stack of people die from a disease. Yea, it's sad when it happens to you, but really one person should die for each person born otherwise we'll overpopulate. I never really got sad with death, and I get uncomfortable with other people who are sad with death because I have trouble empathizing. Of course I don't wish it on anyone, but things like miscarriages, accidents, diseases and old age are simply mechanisms that keep us from outgrowing our food; it's almost irresponsible to be happy at the birth of a baby and sad at the death of a geriatric, you're asking for 1+1=2 instead of 1-1=0. Now, of course, there's the issue of involvement; people usually don't have a problem with other people's family members dying (maybe a passing "oh, that's sad" will suffice) but we have much emotion about our own. While this is a completely natural subjectivity, ask yourself if you can suspend it for a minute, either grieving for everyone who dies everywhere, or just not mourning.
  While on the topic of death, I read a news story about extremists (I know that makes it not applicable to regular life, but it serves as an example) in religion. Some 50 year old guy killed his roommate by shooting him so full of bullets his head was literally disconnected because the roommate was an atheist. The shooter repeatedly said he was an eagle scout and a Christian, and was not repentant about his act and acknowledged he would probably spend the rest of his life in jail. But the problem is his logic; he is fine going to jail because what is the cost of 25 years of inconvenience when doing the lord's work has earned him a lifetime in heaven. He reportedly actually saw the devil in the man's eyes right before he shot him, saying the roommate was Lucifer himself. In the trial, the family of the deceased was repeatedly accosted by the family of the accused, to the point the court had to provide security detail for their protection. This is a huge fear I have of Christianity; I have no problem coexisting, but at any point someone could in their head reach the conclusion that the consequences for me and them on earth are meaningless in the scope of heaven and hell. I don't believe anyone I know would commit such an act, I used to know people who told me I was a bad person for reading Harry Potter but I don't talk to them much anymore, but it still scares me. I just want to be on Earth doing my thing, since I believe there's nothing after life I have to make the most of my time, but the threat of people literally intervening in my life because their belief in an absolute truth with absolute consequences alleviates them the burden of restraint constantly frightens me. Especially now that the connection between church and state has never been stronger. I know I tend to be an extremist myself, but I kind of have to be, since atheism is an extreme viewpoint. I think about this when I talk about becoming a boat captain or interplanetary colonist; isolation or cohabitation with like minded and belief-holding people would make me feel so much safer. America scares me because what was once ideas and concepts are now historical artifacts in a vault somewhere deep in the castle on the hill we have become. Escape from religious persecution has become defense of state sponsored religion, justified by historical context. Having a dream of all men created equal has become all men created equal, so long as they meet an approved ethnicity (Black, White or Asian) and conform to affluent standards. I keep getting on these soapboxes, maybe I should get into politics. I think the government's role in the people's lives is not to protect them from every little thing that can hurt them, but instead to provide services that work to best maintain order and to adjudicate conflicts of freedom between one party or another. We should have no place in foreign affairs unless the people, not the government, ask for our aid. And national security should really consider the security of the nation, not act as a roaming crosshair justified under a pleasant sounding title and opportunistic pouncing on public fear.
  So, here I am, trying to get my life together, I plan on doing the best I can to keep my head up in these last few months, I've so far gotten past having my luggage lost for a few days and returned soaked and having my starter die and need a 300 buck replacement, and though I had small episodes I'm making it through. I'm working on sleeping better, I've been eating better, exercising more and Jenn and I are doing better. So, off I go.

I know I posted this before, but I like it and so I'm posting it again. If you don't have a sense of humor, then read this first, it's my favorite philosophical concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

If marriage is to only be between a man and a woman, and we think this is such a matter of public policy that an amendment to the constitution is even discussed, then I think we need to really go for it. When someone applies for a marriage liscense, they should have to get naked so everyone can see their genitals to perform the first test that they're man and woman. Pictures should be taken and made accessible for anyone who wants to see. Now, I know surgery and stuff can change these things, so blood tests must also be performed. Additionally, people can have gender identity problems, so even someone biologically and physically one gender may not mentally be that gender, making whether they're fully man or woman questionable. Full inquisition for all of them, subject to any test any citizen deems appropriate to protect the sanctity of marriage. Once a person is stripped, tested, interrogated, and finally approved, then they can ethically get married and live happily ever after, for the next 4 years when 50% of marriages end in divorce.

  I have been kind of more of a mess than usual lately. I don't want to do the things I should do. I don't do the things I need to do. I do the things I shouldn't do. I want to do the things I can't do. Who knows what the end result is.
  I feel my relationships are strained. The more I want them to work, the more distance seems to appear. All relationships have felt just a little distant lately, and maybe I am kind of desparate for a connection where in the back of my mind I'm not stressing about what the other person is thinking, if I'm being cool enough, or whether I'm making the person hate me. Really desparate for a real connection. I have become very self defeating, and the fact that my school and work feel like I'm running as hard as I can in place instead of even strolling anywhere are just contributing. I can't live like this, I'm out of things to be passionate about and I feel most people can't understand the things I think about.
  For example, I have comcluded that faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. Once you have proof, faith is futile because there is no trust in the unknown. As it is, then, the search for proof of things that require faith (let's say, in the case of Christianity, a belief in god) is a search to negate faith as it should be understood. Coincidentally, then, knowledge of something that contradicts faith is meaningless to the faith. If faith requires no positive proof, how can it be affected by negative proof? Now, as an atheist, I'd love to make all religious people believe what I believe to try to do away with all the spiritual BS that stands in the way of things I want, but really, I'd be content if everyone happily coexisted with mutual respect. With that, I pose this question to a religious person who follows intelligent design and negates evolution. When presented with evidence in favor of evolution, why can't you just say, "Ok. I see your evidence, it's compelling, true, it conflicts directly with what I believe, but I don't require evidence for what I believe and still believe it. I don't know how, but somehow if your evidence is true it is because the two systems mesh in a way I don't understand but trust is true." This is what faith should be about.
  Additionally, I've become conflicted on the concept of Christmas decorations and wishing people Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays. Ben Stein wrote a post about being Jewish and not caring when people wished him a Merry Christmas, because he knew Jewish people were the minority and in general people were just wishing nice things. Honestly, you have no idea what holiday people celebrate, or if they celebrate at all, so even Happy Holidays isn't reasonable. I got to thinking. Let's say 2 people walk up to each other, one speaks spanish, the other speaks English, neither know what the other speaks. The English person will say hello in their native tongue, and the spanish person will say hellp in their native tongue, no one will be offended and both will have meant good things. Look, minorities in this country must acknowledge to some degree that they're a minority. That being said, there's a huge difference between putting up a sign or a tree in a store and saying Merry Christmas, and committing the Holocaust. All symbols and messages only have meaning once someone gives them meaning. I, as an atheist, still recognize Santa, trees, and all that hubbub as symbols of a nice time of year where we all give gifts and are with friends. I am not offended by them at all and separate them from their religious origins. I propose that as a society, we collectively examine statistics on population ratios, and no matter what decorations an individual or company decides to put up, know that they are expressing their wishes for this season in their own "language" and not renouncing yours should it be different. Let us recognize that all symbols, though rooted in different traditions, are pretty much all saying "have a good time with your family eating good food, baking cookies, and receiving gifts." I will continue to say "Merry Christmas" because it is the way I define my holiday season, but if you are Jewish or any other faith, please do not be offended, but instead with me a "Happy Chaunukkah" (sp) or whatever it is you celebrate.
  I am piecing together a view of the world in my head and I feel I'm making great internal strides, the only problem is the more truths I find the more the defy societal tradition. I must keep working on this, at whatever the cost, until I can optimally interact and adapt with my environment.

   Here's some links I liked this last few weeks:

Articles on how neat Turtles are.

A Marine gives his view on Iraq.

Gotta love that rhetoric, I sure do! I Support Our Troops, without questioning what their conduct or attitude is, gotta support em!

Teach the little ungreatful kids not to waste money on bottled water when it comes out of the tap for free! Plus he looks fat from eating all the time, he needed the exercise! And a good lesson in hard knocks that you don't always get what you work for. Support Our Troops!

See, this is why profiling works, now we know to look out for kids as terrorists. Let's start screening them at airports and stuff extra careful. And to think that the orders didn't come down to use deadly force. I almost used deadly force when a rock got kicked up by the car in front of me on the turnpike and broke my windshield, this officer must be unAmerican. Let's shoot those kids dead so they know not to throw rocks at us again. It's little terrorists like that that take away from the joy of the victory over there and how much the people love us. Support Our Troops!

Sorry, I can't even joke about this one, if they love being in the army, it's time to support our troops stay there so they don't come back home and become a burden on our country.